0
0
Watchdogs on the House Judiciary Committee bared their fangs at FBI agent Elvis Chan and sued him. He’s been “flouting a subpoena to answer questions about the federal government’s alleged collusion with social media companies to censor online speech.” Half our elected officials have been thumbing their noses at Congressional oversight because they’re convinced Merrick Garland will never prosecute them criminally for the contempt. Congress has other remedies available, like civil suit. They filed Chan’s on February 6. Garland doesn’t have any influence at all over D.C.’s federal district court.
FBI agent sued
The seemingly endless cycle of Congress issuing subpoenas and FBI officials ignoring them was broken on Tuesday, February 6, with a surprisingly welcome change of routine. The House Judiciary Committee sued Federal Bureau of Instigation agent Elvis Chan. Attorneys for the House’s Office of General Counsel prepared the 46-page complaint.
Chan, they allege, “has violated and continues to violate his legal obligations by refusing to appear before the Judiciary Committee as required by the Subpoena, and by refusing to answer questions when there has been no assertion of privilege by the Executive Branch.”
The legal team is helping Jim Jordan drag Chan up for questioning because “the bureau agent is a ‘pivotal figure‘ in its probe of federal agencies’ efforts to censor or suppress protected speech.”
House Judiciary Committee Sues FBI Agent for Defying Subpoena – Elvis Chan Who Was the Point Man Behind Govt. Censorship and the Hunter Laptop Lie Is Being Protected by Biden Regime via @gatewaypundit https://t.co/ExmHsbfbPs
— The Gateway Pundit (@gatewaypundit) February 7, 2024
Chan has “firsthand knowledge of The Post’s bombshell 2020 election stories based on emails obtained from Hunter Biden’s laptop.” He worked on the FBI “Foreign Influence Task Force” from the comfort of the liberal-leaning “San Francisco field office.” Officially, he was “a liaison to companies such as Facebook and Twitter.”
Congress demanded that he appear and give testimony under oath on October 5. It didn’t happen and he has no excuse for blowing off the obligation. “congressional attorneys argue that there is ‘no lawful basis‘ for him to evade the subpoena.”
He thinks he does have a valid reason but it’s not going to fly. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. The FBI agent issued a response to the subpoena claiming Congress won’t let him have two lawyers. He’s allowed one or the other but refuses to appear without both.
Personal or government attorney
The language of the House committee’s rules are clear but the FBI continues to believe they can twist them any way they want to avoid compliance.
The House Judiciary Committee “allows witnesses to appear with either a personal or government attorney present, but Chan has insisted on appearing with both.” Lawyers for Congress aren’t buying that argument.
“Despite the Constitution’s clear command that each chamber of Congress ‘may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,‘ DOJ contends that a subpoena compelling testimony about an agency employee’s official duties, without agency counsel present, is unconstitutional and thus unenforceable.”
“House Republicans sue FBI agent Elvis Chan for bucking censorship investigation”https://t.co/yJn0eJ004T
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) February 6, 2024
FBI Agent Chan won’t be happy with just the one supplied by the bureau. He needs that one but needs his own, too. That suggests he must be guilty of something to start with which makes him obsessively nervous. If one lawyer doesn’t think of an objection, the other might.
In practice, what will really happen is both lawyers will advise him to simply keep his mouth shut and stand on his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.
Other than that, the FBI agent doesn’t need a pair of attorneys for him to answer “I don’t remember. I’m not sure,” to every single question. When they hand him documents to “refresh his recollection,” he’ll be getting that advice to “respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.“
